Airbrush

The difference between bombs and guns is bombs are only offensive and guns can be defensive. In a society that disapproves of vigilante justice, bombs have no good use except industrially for mining or for dairy farmers removing tree stumps. Nobody NEEDS to know how to build such an offensive weapon. Are bombs really relatively easy to design? I bet you a nickel the Boston bombers fine tuned their bomb making by using info they EASILY found on the internet. If that info was not there, they could not have done what they did. I'm afraid to even try to look up this info. I'm afraid that authorities are already monitoring such searches. Prove to me a-bomb instructions are on the web. Give us a link. Just because the Russians and a few other countries figured it out does not mean any state can accomplish it. That is why only a few countries can build an a-bomb. "Nothing stays secret for long...." How do you know this? Tell us all the trade secrets you have found. Tell us all about all the top secret projects that exist. You can't.

"Without public knowledge, how would the public know to report suspicious people or activities?" I don't know what this has to do with anything. How does restricting what info is available on the internet prevent you from calling the cops when you see something suspicious? Do us all a favor and CALL THE COPS!

"Where do you draw the line, and how do you do that without infringing on one's right to free speech?" Let the word "bomb" or words that indicate such a thing, be where you draw the line. ANY device that is intended to harm anyone. Infringing on one's right to free speech to describe how to build a simple bomb?! Come on, baking soda and vinegar is not a bomb. "We should go back to the days before the internet when there were no bombs." That is absurd. The internet has introduced a whole range of problems of the wrong information getting to the wrong wacko in seconds. The new asymetric aspect of terrorism has enabled a single person to kill thousands of people. Within a few decades from now, it will be illegal to describe how to build any kind of dangerous bomb (not including baking soda and vinegar or any soda pop). "The problem isn't with the knowledge, it really never is. The problem is with what people do with the knowledge." OK then why can't you find instructions for building an atomic bomb on the internet? "Change the system so parents don't ignore the signs that their children are seriously considering mass murder. Change the system so every child has a healthier respect for life on this planet. Change the system so people grow up knowing that the way they walk through life is their responsibility." Change the system? It is a LOT easier to simply omit some sensitive info from widespread distribution. "But don't try to hide the knowledge. You'll just increase curiosity about it by a couple orders of magnitude." I disagree. For specific knowledge to simply not be found, does not increase curiosity in the average yahoo who can now build a bomb ONLY because it is EASY to do thanks to the internet. "Information is very difficult to control. I can tell you how to make a bomb in a few seconds. If nobody hears me then there is no way to prove that I told you, and no way to tell that you know." Nonsense! Info is very easy to omit from the internet. Try to find info about anything that is secret. "As far as making bombs, I recall learning how anarchists and terrorists of the past had constructed their weaponry from books in my high school library, along with tips on blowing stumps from the diary farmers I threw hay for, as a teenager." Only a genius could figure out how to make a bomb from what is in a high school library. You may be a genius, but I don't think the Boston bombers were geniuses. Dairy farmers should get a permit from the local authority and purchase explosives from a reputable licensed supplier and be accountable to the authority for what they do with it.

Is this info that needs to be available on the internet? Is this knowledge that should be freely available to every dummy on Earth? This kind of knowledge, no matter how simple the bomb, should be banned from the internet, like child porn or how to build a nuclear bomb or bio weapon, and other harmful or deadly subjects. It should be illegal to post this anywhere on the internet. I propose that anyone who posts info on how to build a bomb should be tracked down and arrested, and whatever they post be deleted upon detection.

All evolution cares about is that procreation takes place soon enough to ensure survival of that species. It does not care how old people live to be. It does not matter much how healthy people eat all their life, since all they need to do is procreate at an early age, and the genes for the love of high calorie food get passed early on.

Thanks Ophiolite for the good info on an interesting topic!

"...So how does science explain the evolution of THC in marijuana without saying from random mutations when this plants evolution had a goal." THC evolved as a defense against insects. It's psychoactive effect on people is a side effect.

Hi pwagen, in case you haven't notice this, here it is from wikipedia" "...Mammals and birds that survived the extinction fed on insects, worms, and snails, which in turn fed on dead plant and animal matter. Scientists hypothesize that these organisms survived the collapse of plant-based food chains because they fed on detritus (non-living organic material)." The science programs had reputable scientists stating these things. My commentary is flawed. All vegetation would have burned off in global-wide fires. Some plants did not go extinct, but they were gone for months or years. Animals fed on insects and creepy crawlies, which fed on dead plant & animal material. And after a while, many species of plant life returned from "hibernation" when there was enough sunlight.

OK, I'm going to ask this question in the biology section. pwagen: "I'll have to ask for your source on this. While a lot of plants (and animals) died and went extinct, not "all vegetation" was burned to a crisp. If, indeed, all plants were burned, wouldn't it also be likely that animals everywhere were scorched to death as well? Why would the molten rain effect only plants?" My sources are several recent science programs I've seen on Science Channel. All vegetation did not go extinct, but it was all gone long enough (months at least) for herbivours to all become extinct. All I can think of is the only surviving animals were either carnivours or omnivours, later herbivours evolved from the surviving omnivours. I'm signing out here, next post to Biology. This is as close as I can find on Wiki: "....Omnivores, insectivores and carrion-eaters survived the extinction event, perhaps because of the increased availability of their food sources. At the end of the Cretaceous there seems to have been no purely herbivorous or carnivorous mammals. Mammals and birds that survived the extinction fed on insects, worms, and snails, which in turn fed on dead plant and animal matter. Scientists hypothesize that these organisms survived the collapse of plant-based food chains because they fed on detritus (non-living organic material)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KT_extinction

Do you really care how common life, or especially intelligent life, is in the entire galaxy? The galaxy is a big place. I am only interested in Earth-like planets within about 100 light years. Beyond that is irrelevant.

"Why would it have "burned up all vegetation"? There was no global-wide fire." According to current theory the KT asteroid burned up all vegetation on Earth from global-wide molten rain of rocks. This was immediately followed by asteroid winter. How did herbivours survive?

Fertilizerspike has said much and yet nothing solid to refute current mainstream scientific ideas about detecting exoplanets. He cannot be specific, just vague criticism about scientists.

Yes, but the difference in mass from all the moons of the planet will probably be negligible.

After the KT asteroid impact 65 million years ago, why did herbivours survive? If the asteroid threw molten rock high into the atmosphere, which rained down all over the Earth, that would have burned up all vegetation on the planet. That global-wide fire would have been followed by an "Asteroid Winter" and no plants would grow for months or years. What did the surviving mammal herbivours eat during this time? Herbivours should not have survived, and yet they did.

Planetary orbits are not self-correcting. What we have today is a total random outcome. There is life on Earth only because our solar system has such regular, nearly circular orbits for all the planets near us. However, Billions of years from now, our solar system could evolve to become more irregular and planets could collide.

Last night I heard Stephan Hawking say that the total mass/energy vs space (dark energy) equals zero. There is exactly enough dark energy to cancel out all matter/energy. The universe began from zero and it still adds up to zero. Or something like that.

In theory, if you can blow the huge asteroid apart, the pieces will fly away from the center of explosion far enough to miss the Earth. This needs to be done far enough away to allow the pieces to spread out thousands of miles apart.

I'd imagine it would look like the smoothest perfect sphere you have ever seen. I wonder what it would look like crashing thru our atmosphere at 500 miles per second? The atmosphere would not slow it down at all. Sparks would really fly as it punched thru the atmosphere in less than a second. How would the Earth react to it? Very frightening idea. the biggest asteroid impact would pale in comparison.

When a massive star supernovas and the collapse is asymetric, it may kick the newly created neutron star away at over 600 miles per second. Could a larger asymetric collapse also create a black hole that takes off at hypervelocity?

Thanks to iNow's post from the beginning of this discussion. Here it is again: "But the obesity epidemic hardly looks like a growth killer. Highly processed corn-based food products, with lots of chemical additives, are well known to be a major driver of weight gain, but, from a conventional growth-accounting perspective, they are great stuff. Big agriculture gets paid for growing the corn (often subsidized by the government), and the food processors get paid for adding tons of chemicals to create a habit-forming – and thus irresistible – product. Along the way, scientists get paid for finding just the right mix of salt, sugar, and chemicals to make the latest instant food maximally addictive; advertisers get paid for peddling it; and, in the end, the health-care industry makes a fortune treating the disease that inevitably results. "Coronary capitalism is fantastic for the stock market, which includes companies in all of these industries. Highly processed food is also good for jobs, including high-end employment in research, advertising, and health care. So, who could complain? Certainly not politicians, who get re-elected when jobs are plentiful and stock prices are up – and get donations from all of the industries that participate in the production of processed food. Indeed, in the US, politicians who dared to talk about the health, environmental, or sustainability implications of processed food would in many cases find themselves starved of campaign funds." Lots of jobs and economic activity can be created by destroying the health of the population, including the medical industry addressing the symptoms of poor eating habits. If people ate correctly, the health care industry would shrink. Thanks to some great posts by Phi for all!

How about wondering Jupiter-sized planets? There are estimated to be more wondering planets than stars in our galaxy, according to last night's episode of "How the Universe Works". These could disturb the Oort cloud also.

Easiest and quickest is the direct approach, smacking it with as much mass as we can or exploding a nuke near enough to cause massive outgassing, if it is not too large. Those methods are quick and dirty last resorts, no telling what direction they will take assuming it is probably rotating. It would be nice to know if it is solid metal, rock, or a rubble pile. If it is several miles across and far enough away, I propose a Bruce Willis, dig into the center and blow it up to scatter the pieces as far apart as possible. Gravity tractors are among the indirect methods, best but they take a long time to work. We will probably not see a Tunguska sized object until it is too late, but probably it will not destroy a major city.

It seems to me the basic argument against legalizing the current illegal drugs is because many people are afraid that most people will become lazy drug addicts or charges upon society. With all drugs legal, unemployment would go thru the ceiling, and the ranks of the homeless would explode. People high on drugs don't want to work. This will weaken social structure and the nation will collapse like the fall of the Roman empire, plunging us into another dark age. Too bad, because I love cannabis, and I can't stand alcohol or tobacco. I'm not even curious about crack or meth, but I'm curious about stuff like LSD, mushrooms, salvia, peyote, etc.

Those are good questions and I hope someone can answer them, if possible.

Has anyone seen this show on Science Channel? It was run several times. It tells of an effort to see the "shadow" of the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way. They are using giant radio telescopes all across the US and maybe other countries, and using a super computer to figure it out. This is also the program that I incorrectly thought I heard an astronomer say that past the event horizon matter is accelerated faster than light speed. What he actually said was space itself accelerates into the black hole faster than light speed. He also mentioned an "inner" event horizon in the black hole where matter crashes into space or matter, or whatever, between the 2 event horizons, I think. Does anyone know more about this inner event horizon? Also does anyone know the current progress towards seeing the SBH at the center of our galaxy?